“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.” Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”

Terrorism. Emergency plans. Political careers. The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.

But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2012. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

In the Heart of Darkness of 9/11
August 31st, 2012 Kommentare deaktiviert
Officially the air defense of the United States has completely failed on 9/11 – not once, not twice, but four times in a row, while a whole slew of war game exercises were taking place simultaneously during the time of the terror attacks. Furthermore, the Continuity of Government plans were activated that day – after two decades of preparation. Many essential questions related to the “mythical historical narrative” (Zbigniew Brzeziński) are still not investigated at all. An exclusive interview with German researcher Paul Schreyer.

By Lars Schall

Paul Schreyer was born 1977 in Ahrenshoop, Germany. He is a freelance journalist for the German magazines “Telepolis”, “Hintergrund” and “Ossietzky“, as well as author of the German written book “Inside 9/11″. Related to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 he has published also this website in English and German: http://www.911-facts.info/, and these videos: “Inside 9/11 – Who controlled the planes?”, “Inside 9/11 – Hijacking the air defense”, and “Inside 9/11 – Obstructing the investigation”.

Lars Schall: Mr. Schreyer, would you agree with me that the topic of the war games and the failure of the air defense on the morning of September 11, 2001 is the single most important issue related to the terror attacks of 9/11?

Paul Schreyer: That´s true. What we call 9/11 is essentially four planes being hijacked and crashed in a two hour period of time. Therefore, the complete failure of the air defense during these two hours should be investigated in much more depth and detail than it has been by the 9/11 Commission. And regarding the war games, yes, it´s at least quite strange that exactly on 9/11 a military exercise was taking place that included a virtual hijacking.

Actually it´s a bit more than simply strange, considering that the second big terror attack in the western hemisphere in the last decade, the 7/7 tube bombing in London 2005, was also happening precisely while an exercise testing a tube bombing was running. (1) To call this a coincidence one has to change the meaning of the word, I would say.

L.S.: Why have you developed an interest in 9/11 in general, and in the above mentioned topic in particular?

P.S.: 9/11 is still the biggest topic of our time. It started or accelerated major policy shifts in many countries. We still live under the influence of these policy shifts. That´s why you can´t act responsibly today as long as you don´t know what really happened on 9/11. We have to come clean with this history. It´s a simple matter of truthfulness.

And the issue of the air defense that morning is apparently a key to the whole thing. It should be obvious to everybody. The Pentagon was being hit about 90 minutes after the first hijacking started. And still the strongest military power in the world should not have been able to protect its own nerve center? That has to be explained.

L.S.: On the morning of 9/11 there were a whole slew of war game exercises going on. Can you tell us about one specifically, please – and that is “Vigilant Guardian“?

P.S.: “Vigilant Guardian” was a countrywide so called “transition to war” exercise taking place between August 20th and September 13th, 2001. But only between September 10th and 13th it was planned to run 24 hours a day. Right on the morning of 9/11 the scenario contained a hijacking. That´s why the first phone call about a real hijacking made officers in the air defense headquarter wonder. One even said: “Somebody started the exercise early. The hijack is not supposed to be for another hour.” It appears that the exercise somehow melted with reality.

A special backup network that allows communications between government and military agencies to continue during emergencies was "miraculously" switched on the day before 9/11, and so was already operational when the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon took place. The Special Routing Arrangement Service (SRAS) was, for reasons unknown, turned on for "exercise mode" on September 10, 2001, and was therefore ready to be utilized the following day, when there was a national emergency like that for which it was intended.

The SRAS is the responsibility of a little-known government agency called the National Communications System (NCS), which works to keep critical telecommunications functioning during emergencies and played a crucial role in the government's response to the 9/11 attacks, helping to maintain and restore communications networks. Furthermore, the SRAS is related to "Continuity of Government"--a plan that was activated for the first time during the attacks.

Is the State of Emergency Superseding the US Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society by Peter Dale Scott

In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly North had been handling plans for an emergency response to a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution at the president’s determination.

As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times without journalistic comment or follow-up:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:
Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 10, 2010
Notice from the President on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

NOTICE

-------

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency previously declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2010. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency that was declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

"Something doesn't add up here. Why would the U.S. government need to declare a national emergency to enable hospitals to handle a flood of sick people when there is no flood of sick people (and the pandemic seems to be fizzling out)?

"This is more like the kind of preparation you might expect in advance of a biological terrorism attack, not for a flu that appears no more dangerous than the seasonal sniffles."

In response to the call to action outlined in the article “To All Readers: Help Force Congress To Observe the Law on National Emergencies!!!” by Prof. Peter Dale Scott and former Rep. Dan Hamburg (D-CA), I emailed and faxed Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA), and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA). In my letter I noted that former President Bush declared a “State of Emergency” on September 14, 2001 and continued it every year since then, and I asked why Congress has not yet met to “consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated", as Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act requires them to do, every six months following such a declaration. I also asked if Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary are “operating according to the Constitution, or according to the rules of Continuity of Government”, as the Continuity of Government procedures enacted on 9/11 have never been formally rescinded.

Because - if they are - Obama would not be sworn in on January 20, 2009 as President of the constitutional American government, but rather as the powerless figurehead of an unconstitutional shadow government.

Wouldn't that little difference make it important to find out one way or the other?

Remember, the White House has specifically refused to share information about Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.

feedback, ideas, link/logic/fact checking, etc. appreciated. This one is too long, i think, and i still could've put a lot more stuff into it, but my goal is mainly to introduce info to new people and interest them in following the links, i'm just summarizing research others have done.

9/11 Truth, Part 6 of 11: Air Defense “Failures”, Simultaneous War Games & Continuity of Government
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/911-truth-part-6-of-11-air-defense-“failures”-simultaneous-war-games-continuity-of-government/

This article summarizes some of the events concerning the 4 hijacked flights on 9/11, provides information on standard air defense procedures and warnings received prior to 9/11 and gives a brief overview of the multiple war games and military operations surrounding 9/11, including Continuity of Government planning. Links are provided for more in depth research.

The morning of 9/11, a highly secret plan was activated for the first time. Called continuity of government (COG), it dated back to the cold war and had originally been designed to ensure the U.S. government would continue to function in the event of a nuclear war. According to author James Mann, this little-known plan "helps to explain the thinking and behavior" of the Bush administration, "in the hours, days, and months after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." [1]

Thousands of key federal employees are being whisked from the Washington area by helicopter and car for a three-day test of their ability to run the government from remote locations during a disaster.

The exodus, which began yesterday and will continue today, involves the White House and other parts of the executive branch. Congress and the judiciary are not part of the exercise, which is being overseen by the Department of Homeland Security.

Since the late 1990s, every federal agency has been required to have a plan to quickly resume operations after a catastrophe. But the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks raised doubts about many agencies' preparations.